dear john

Now about clothes, some kids can't afford nice clothes and they need them to go school. After all, they can't go to school naked can they? Is that what you want? A bunch of poor kids going to school naked? What are you, some sort of sick, cruel, twisted character from an Oliver Twist novel? You're not? Great, that's why we want you to support our "free clothes for kids" initiative, etc, etc, etc....

Dear John,

We are talking about a $1.50 a day lunch for some kids. Just because I want to give a meal to a hungry kid because that kid can learn better on a full stomach and not flunk out of school and go on to become a drain on the system does not mean I support some ridiculous socialism-inspired theory of giving and getting based on needs and abilities.

We are talking about a god damn bologna sandwich and a pint of milk. Maybe an orange or a cookie to go with it. For all the talk of compassionate conservatism I'm seeing very little compassion from you. We all pay taxes. We all give to the community in that respect. Our school tax money goes towards the education of the children of the community and if that includes some rubbery chicken nuggets and a coke, then so be it. I find it hard to believe that anyone, rich or poor or in between, would be so self-centered and hard assed as to think that giving some disadvantaged child a warm lunch every day would somehow bring along armageddon. This all reminds me of the people who vote down the school budget because they no longer have kids in the school system and don't want their taxes raised to pay for new textbooks or gym equipment, forgetting all the people without kids who paid their school taxes without flinching years ago when the selfish pricks' kids were in school. Poor isn't what it used to be. There are plenty of poor people who work and provide for their kids and spend quality time with them and clothe and feed them but are feeling the pinch of the economy and are having a hard time making ends meet. At $1.50 a day for a whole school year for one or two kids, that accumulated savings can mean a lot to one family that isn't home doing crack or watching soap operas or trying to pay for beer with WIC coupons. Life is not made of white, middle aged men in business suits brokering deals and then going home to a nice little family in a comfortable house. There's all kinds of people out there and you might be surprised to find out how many of your acquaintances qualify as poor according to the latest standards. No, I don't want to feed and clothe every child that comes into my school district asking for a free lunch. But damn, it's not a real big deal to give the kid a sandwich without asking them to "make macaroni pictures dedicated to the US taxpayers who are paying for the free pizza they're getting at lunch." Most of these kids don't even know they are getting a free lunch. But hey, let's make them feel really ashamed by beating out erasers or sweeping the hallways. All kids get their textbooks for free - why not make all the kids work after school hours in the basement putting plastic covers on the music sheets or greeting cards for the rich while you're at it? Hell, turn the schools into sweatshops so those snot-nosed little kids know what it's like to have to work for their education! One freaking sandwich a day. Is that really too much to ask? I guess so.

TrackBack

» Please Don't Feed The Children from PhotoDude's Weblog
I think some people have been reading too much Ann Coulter, and have become convinced the Molatov Cocktail approach is the way to win converts to conservatism (hint: it ain't workin' for her, either). [Read More]

» The Cul-de-Sac for Monday, September 15th from suburban blight
Welcome to the Cul-de-Sac, my weekly Adventure in Blogging. I had a fantastic time putting together this week's edition; despite the pall cast by the anniversary of the September 11th attacks, bloggers were out in full force and shining. I... [Read More]

» The Cul-de-Sac for Monday, September 15th from suburban blight
Welcome to the Cul-de-Sac, my weekly Adventure in Blogging. I had a fantastic time putting together this week's edition; despite the pall cast by the anniversary of the September 11th attacks, bloggers were out in full force and shining. I... [Read More]

» Food Fight from An Unsealed Room
The food fight surrounding free meals at school continues. John responds to Michele and I in an update to his post -- he REALLY didn't like the Oliver Twist remark, apparently. He says that if we're gonna feed them breakfast... [Read More]

» TANSTAAFL from The Waterglass
There's a bit of a dust-up about free school lunch programs in the blogosphere, so before you weigh in, check out the following links. There's a bit of reading to do, but it's worth it, because it's fascinating on several... [Read More]

» Mystery Meat from No Prerequisite
Seems the hottest topic since religion is free lunches at school. Since I've been so busy the last few days, I've hardly been able to keep up with it. Things seemed to get started at Right Wing News, where John... [Read More]

» Right-wing nutcases from Blog
It has to be said: there are right-wing nutcases too, and I don't mean just Pat Buchanan. I got to the whole discussion late, but wanted to express my disgust with John Hawkins. He's not saying something new. It's the... [Read More]

Comments

Actually I wrote this in response to you and Allison....

"There are a lot of links to this one and predictably, most of them are demagoguing my position and saying some variation of "that's mean". But being the open-minded, Bushlike, compassionate conservative that I am, I have learned from what they've had to say.

Therefore, I'd like to announce that I now support the school breakfast and lunch program, for all kids, just as they're doing during breakfasts in New York. Sure that means the children of billionaires are going to be getting free breakfast too, but we can't take the risk that any child might go hungry. After all, there still are people in America, most of whom seem to be posting at A Small Victory (how they can afford computers, but not food for their kids is beyond me), who believe that everyone else has a responsibility to pay for their kid's food.

But I do still have one problem with free school lunches and breakfasts for all children and that is; it simply doesn't go far enough. After all, shouldn't these kids be eating 3 meals a day? How can we as responsible people who care about the children live with ourselves knowing these kids don't eat a good dinner? So we'll need to start handing out food as these kids go out the doors every day.

Then there's the week-end -- do we not often ask these kids to do homework over the week-ends? How can we ask them to learn when they're obviously fasting every week-end because their parents can't afford to feed them? What sort of people would we be if we let these kids go two days without food? So how can we call ourselves "caring people" if we don't feed these kids on the week-ends as well?

Then -- to our eternal shame -- there's the summer "vacation". We should call it the summer "starvation". Oh the horror, the tragedy, the shame we Americans should feel that we send these kids on summer vacation knowing that their parents aren't going feed them. Then after a long vacation, with no school breakfasts, no school lunches, these kids come back to school -- the ones who live that long without starving -- with ribs poking out, some of them crawling because they're too weak from hunger to stand, so they can get their free food. Oh wait, that doesn't happen does it? During the summer, the kids somehow get fed without the school doing it don't they?

But this is no time for cold-hearted, cruel, logic, it's a time for, caring, loving, fuzzyheaded demands that we do it FOR THE CHILDREN! So I appeal to hard hearts out there, to people like Michele Catalano & Allison Kaplan Sommer, can't we have taxpayer supported food sent out to all the children for dinner, week-ends, and summer -- for the kids? Sure, we might have to get rid of a few -- well actually a lot -- of teachers to pay for it, but isn't it worth to make sure no child in America is ever at risk of going hungry? What do you mean no? What are you, some sort of sick, cruel, twisted character from an Oliver Twist novel who thinks children should spend their days living off of half a cup of gruel while they toil away in the acid mines? HMMM -- is that what you're saying? Oh -- you're for it now? Good...

Now about clothes, some kids can't afford nice clothes and they need them to go school. After all, they can't go to school naked can they? Is that what you want? A bunch of poor kids going to school naked? What are you, some sort of sick, cruel, twisted character from an Oliver Twist novel? You're not? Great, that's why we want you to support our "free clothes for kids" initiative, etc, etc, etc....

Again Michele, you are spot on. If John Hawkins is having a hissy fit over a school lunch, I imagine the notion of community schools that have student bodies of perhaps 95 percent critically at risk students which DO provide at least two meals a day (plus day care, social services, police, etc etc) would send him right over the edge. Of course the fact that those schools are graduating students that otherwise would have dropped out and become a permanent drain on his pocketbook through jails and social services and the rest probably is too big a leap....

Michele's passion on this issue is perhaps admirable. Unfortunately, it is difficult to think of a big-government liberal program which couldn't evoke such a passionate defense. From social security to prescription drugs to day care to you name it.

I also think that Michele and John are talking past each other here a bit. The program that initially prompted John's objection is one that makes the government the primary provider of those meals for ALL students, not just the poor.

Arbiter, I'm not familiar with your posts. Are you really a Republican who thinks the Democrats have better positions on environmental issues? I don't get that. I mean, I can see someone preferring the policies of the Democrats, of course, but I can't see such a person being a Republican on other issues.

Christopher, I am whichever party is currently fielding the least objectionable moron. I can most closely be defined as a Libertarian, only they're a bit too socially numb to completely butter my bread. As I said, we need a new party.

The children are not extensions of their parents. It's not their fault if they have crappy idiot parents. Even if the parents spend every penny they have on crack, the kids should still be fed. Holding children responsible for the sins of their parents is just ignorant balderdash.

If the parents are good people who just happen to be poor for one reason or another (and there's ten thousand different things that can make a good person poor), then I for one am more than happy for some of my tax money to go to helping out their family.

So I say feed the kids whether the parents are bad or good.

When children go unfed it demeans the whole society. Excepting a minority of sociopaths, everybody suffers as a consequence. Feeding hungry children is a thoroughly legitimate function of government.

I think you are missing a big part of the problem with this particular program. The "poverty rate", which is the basis for calculating federal money the school district receives, is calculated on the number of free meals served.

Which makes this a thinly disguised way to rig the numbers to get more federal money.

I'm afraid I'm with John on this one (mostly). I don't have a problem with feeding kids who are too poor to bring food but school meals are more expensive than packing a lunch, which is what the parents should be doing anyway (or better, making the kids pack their own). There is no excuse for subsidizing middle class or rich students.

John, I have to disagree with you on this one. I'm not in favor of most welfare programs, but this is one of the rare good ones. A hungry child does not learn well. If a child does not learn well in school, he or she is not going to be a productive adult.

You know why they make these programs available for all kids? Because before they were open to all, kids made fun of the kids who participated. Now that might not be a big deal to you, but there were huge problems getting the kids who needed the food to participated. It was a big deal to the kids, who already are ostracized because they don't have decent clothes, can't participate in after-school activities and so on.

So there are some parents who take advantage of the system who don't need it. Big deal. I don't care. There are a whole lot of hungry children out there who don't care either....they know there's at least one meal a day of which they're assured, and they aren't going to be made to feel like they're less than nothing for eating it.

You should be ashamed to begrudge these kids a few bucks a week. There are much better targets for trimming government waste than some hungry children. Because of programs like these, there are many children who grow up to become productive adults who wouldn't have otherwise...thus amply repaying their debt to the tax-paying society.

We know what life is like without government aid to the poor – just read any Dickens novel, read about the Triangle Shirtwaist fire. We don't want to go back to that.

A society should be judged by how well it treats its weakest members. The weakest members could be the poor (kids, their underpaid mothers) or they could be victims or the potential victims of crime or terrorism.

Government programs that only serve the needy (like welfare) tend to be less successful than government programs that help everyone (schools, school lunches, social security, police, firemen, military defense). These programs are available to anyone, and that’s why most of us are more than willing to pay for them.

It's amazing I didn't starve to death. I grew up in the 1930s in a low income family. My mother was able to put a sandwich and an apple or a banana in a paper sack for lunch. It must have been magic, we couldn't depend on the government in those days.

I have been diligently lurking on this topic/releative posts since the inception. I think that the point has been missed by those who concur with Michele et all with respect to we who digress. It's principal. Too deep to explain, it's not as simple as it seems. I am in opposition on this one, Michele. In principal.

I was born in the UK, educated in the UK and Australia. I have no idea what the rights and wrongs of the "Big Picture" are. I do know what it's like not to eat for 3 days at a time though.

But I just gave a paltry $10 to Kat. Woopie-Do. But its $10 better than nothing.

So before anyone goes on about the "Big Picture" or "Compassionate Conservatism" vs "Compassionate Liberalism" why not do something concrete (if you can afford it)? Call it an entry fee for participating in this discussion.

Alan, that's not a bad idea at all. But as a childless homeowner, I paid my "entry fee" last month: my county property taxes (a significant portion of which funds local schools). And it wasn't paltry.

But even though I knew it meant a lot of MY money ... mine minemine! ... would go to feed and educate other people's children, and even though I have no personal need for the school system, I paid them gladly. I'm quite pleased to see my money used in that manner. But I guess I'm just funny that way.

Holy buttered crap on a stick, listen to yourselves. Can you even read what you post? You prove the man's point.
"It's only a couple of bucks, geez..."

Come on, it's ALWAYS "just a little this or that" program. And it always needs "just a little bit more funding" each year. Yet no matter how much is given, it's never enough. And eventually, what was originally Government charity becomes Government MANDATED.

Calling it a slippery slope is an understatement. ALL OF GOVERNMENT is built on a slippery slope. Those who forget that are the first to get reamed.

When I was a kid the notion of a school breakfast was ludicrous. What?? Schools serving breakfast? Hadn't their moms ever heard of Cheerios?

But now it's "heartless" to suggest that Wonder Mom spend sixty seconds finding a bowl, a spoon, and pouring the damned milk.

For tens of thousands of years, we've had poor working people. Yet in all those tens of thousands of years, poor people-- most of whom worked harder and longer hours than any of our spoiled generation could even imagine-- managed to feed their own damned children.

If a family in the 21st century living in the wealthiest nation in the world cannot manage to feed their own children, especially with all the thousands of willing charitable organizations that already exist outside of the government, they have problems that no free lunch will fix---- and for that matter would bring them under the jurisdiction of the law for abuse and neglect anyway.

"...and for that matter would bring them under the jurisdiction of the law for abuse and neglect anyway."

Ah, now we've found an area where you might agree government should get involved in the lives of children. Oops, if government arrests those parents and charges them with abuse ... someone else will have to feed the kids!

Hmmm, it sounds like, at some base level, our society has decided to take responsibility for children whose parents are unwilling/unable to properly care for them. We're even willing to throw those parents in jail, with all the costs that entails.

God this topic is full of people talking past each other. I'm not for abolishing school lunches in the slightest, but the pro-school lunchers on here don't seem to have the slightest problem with that program expanding dramtically in New York recently, and they seem to think everyone should have the attitude "Oh, people who get free lunches don't need to have any gratitude". Now if I have misconstrued you, address that and don't accuse me of wanting to starve children.

Ok. I have had some time to sleep on this and read through everyones comments.
Let's talk gratitude. I am extremely grateful for what I have. I am not un grateful for any of it.
I am angry that even those people who grew up on the free lunch program and say that they were embarrassed, having benefited from it, would take it away.
I talked to my sons last night about this whole thing because they are old enough, they know they get free lunch, they see the small child support checks. They know what is going on.
I asked them what would be worse, more embarrassing, having your friends know that you get it free or going without and possibly not having a lunch if we were out of food.
They said going without because then everyone would KNOW that they were poor and also have to sit and watch others eat if they had nothing. They said they would be hungry. That would be harder.
Is it their fault, that after 10 years of raising them on my own with no help from any welfare, that my body has failed me? Is it their fault that their father keeps having more kids and doesn't pay enough child support? No it's not.
But here, I don't know what it is like in other states, you have to reapply for the free lunch every 3 months. Your welfare gets reviewed every 3 months, if anything changes, you either get a decrease or an increase. I have seen people who should not be getting welfare in my humiliating trips to the office. Big cars, lots of jewelry, 4-5 kids and another on the way. There is abuse but we can come up with something better to deal with the abusers and get them out. But do we really have to take it away from the ones who really need it?
I keep reading all this mine mine mine talk.
Well, guess what, it's my money too. I have always worked up until now. I have always paid in my taxes. I need some help and it's my money too so why shouldn't I use it when I need to?
If I could get the surgery that would allow me to work, I would. If I could work, I would.
This is not my kids fault. My body has failed me and you would punish my kids for my body?
You cannot buy cigs and beer with wic vouchers. Yes, there are unscrupulous store owners who change them in for cash and beer. Go after them, fine them, punish them for abusing what should be a good program. Have them turn in the people who want to buy beer and cigs with them. Make a huge sting. Watch it all come down. Punish the bad ones, not the ones who need it.
There is abuse of food stamps in states where they still use the paper ones. Here, they are on a debit card. You can only buy food. There is no way to get cash for them at all. The cash registers don't allow it. If you buy food and non-food, the non-food has to be paid for in cash. If you need toilet paper to wipe your ass and you have no cash to pay for it, you are shit out of luck so to speak.
Do you think that I enjoy this? Do you think I like having to go down to the worst neighborhood in my city every 3 months and watch as people smoke their dope before they go in to get more welfare? Do you think I like having to use that debit card when the old lady behind me makes a snide remark about it? " eeww, food stamps, can't you hurry it up please?"
This is not fun. It's not great. It's humiliating, degrading, and you get treated like the dregs of society because there is abuse by other people.
Yes, I am angry that others abuse it. It makes all of you look down your noses at me.
If I get some extra child support by some miracle, I get penalized in my food stamps. They will take away $100 for $30 in child support. Does that make sense? Nope.
There has to be another way.
I really wish there was another way.
I'm not posting here so that you will give me help. That is not what I am doing. This issue just infuriates me because it's not some of you going through this and YOUR money is being spent wastefully you say. It's my money too. I paid in. My social security is paid in. I pay taxes on my non-food items and when I worked, I paid the same as you weekly out of my checks. I worked hard and long and my body gave out. There has to be a way to fix this so that everyone who pays in is happy and not feeling abused. Come up with a solution to fix it rather than take away from those who need it.

1. Free lunches do not come out of local school budgets and do not come out of homeowners' property taxes. The free lunch program is overseen by the Agriculture Department and the subsidies come from that. The Agriculture Department sets the rules.

2. Stigma - most schools have gone to a magnetic card system. The parents send a check in on the kid's account and the amount of the lunch is debited from the account each day. The kids who are on free lunch have a card as well. Everyone has a card, nobody knows how much anyone is paying. Also useful for preventing bullies from stealing lunch money.

RHJunior said - Come on, it's ALWAYS "just a little this or that" program. And it always needs "just a little bit more funding" each year. Yet no matter how much is given, it's never enough."

The same argument is currently being used by the left to justify their claim that we should leave Iraq.

They don't realize that our actions in Iraq are meant to protect Americans, and to allow our country and our economy to function. The left doesn't get it, but most peopledo. The government's job is to protect us. That's what we pay them for.

When the government does its job, we can go to work, earn our salaries, and pay our taxes. If we don't pay our taxes, and if the government can't do its job, things fall apart, and it's not so easy to earn a salary. You can't earn 'your' money without a well-functioning government, a government that makes sure that our basic needs are taken care of. We're all in this togther.

In Pakistan, they have thousands of willing charitable organizations that already exist outside the government - they're called madrassas. The government is accountable, but random charites are not. Sometimes, they mean well, and sometimes they don't.

For tens of thousands of years, we've had poor working people. Yet in all those tens of thousands of years, poor people-- most of whom worked harder and longer hours than any of our spoiled generation could even imagine-- managed to feed their own damned children.

Um, I'd just like to note that they didn't, always. That is, if there were no factories for the children to work in.

Yet in all those tens of thousands of years, poor people-- most of whom worked harder and longer hours than any of our spoiled generation could even imagine-- managed to feed their own damned children.

Ever done any genealogy research? I ask because if you haven't, the results about five generations back, especially in regards to infant and child mortality, much of it due to poor nutrition in combination with disease, might prove illuminating.

Well, John Hawkins, they do have free lunch programs in the summer, at least in some towns. When I was a child they served lunch in the city parks to any child who wanted it.

And when I was a child, some days that free school lunch was the only meal I had. Yup, my mother was a bad parent. She didn't plan, she didn't budget. Sometimes we had government surplus dry milk and cheese, but not always. Thanks to free school lunch (and breakfast at one of the 12 schools I attended during the poverty years) I am alive today. Alive to work a terrific job, own a home, and pay taxes -- which I hope pay for some other kids' free lunch so they have a chance, too.

I grew up in the 1930s in a low income family. My mother was able to put a sandwich and an apple or a banana in a paper sack for lunch. It must have been magic, we couldn't depend on the government in those days.

Perhaps your family didn't, but millions did. One-third of the labor force was unemployed. There were hunger riots. The New Deal era isn't exactly a model for self-reliance without government assistance.

My father is 71 years old. His father hitchhiked from Texas to Grass Valley, CA. to find work during the Depression. He worked in the gold mines there, and was able to earn enough money to bring his family from Texas.

Even though he had a job, a family that raised chickens, and the occasional jacklighted deer to put food on the table, there were times when dad left the dinner table hungry. They didn't get goverment help, either.

Does either experience invalidate the other? No.
I would bet garbage to door nails that my dad's experience was more common than yours, richard.

There is a lot of talking past each other going on here. Perhaps some clarification: it is despairing and angry-making to realize, as a parent, that due to no fault of one's own, one finds oneself in a postion of needing help feeding the children. This makes a parent, well, angry...and defensive. They've done their best, most times, and fallen short. If, for a little while, until parents can get back on their feet, they need a free lunch for their kids, most other people will gladly give that help. But other people are not given the choice to help now. Now, the government decides whom will help whom; it's not voluntary. Even so, again, most people seeing a hungry child will not object. Here's the rub though: we've got the parent proclaiming their need, on behalf of their child, with their chins stuck out, defensively, rationalizing why it's mandatory for anybody else to have to feed their kid. This demand is cloaked in terms of 'investment' in the future of society, who pays what in taxes, etceterAH, etceterAH, etceterAH. Parent, listen: just say thank you. Pass it on when you finally can. Don't list all the reasons why you're 'entitled', you're not, it's charity. They're your children, your responsibility. We're glad to help, but don't demand, you don't have the right and it pisses people off. We understand you're a little ashamed, doing your best, and defensive. We would be too. I am not advocating humiliation here, I am requesting humility. Nothing in this life is free; this is the cost of asking for, and receiving help.

Alan, that's not a bad idea at all. But as a childless homeowner, I paid my "entry fee" last month: my county property taxes (a significant portion of which funds local schools). And it wasn't paltry.

Mate, I'm not even American. I'm Australian. I earn less than the "working poor" rate in the US. I just got a bill for $2500 of property taxes too. Why should I pay anything to anyone in a country as rich as the USA? Because I saw an opportunity to help someone in a trivial way. It won't go to some Government Boondoggle, shiftless ne'er-do-well or Kleptocratic Bureaucrat.

May the day never come when my somewhat right-wing political principles get in the way of me doing the right thing.

Jeez, it's only $10 US, $15 Australian. And I'm not asking for you to give $10 or even 10c a year to everyone who's on welfare, just one person, once. Still, it's your money, you earned it and your right to do whatever you want with it.